Study on Final Felling Age of Chinese Fir Plantation With Different Site Index in Guangxi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on 156 analytic trees’ samples from 128 plots of Chinese fir plantation in Guangxi and 269,810 Chinese fir plantation subcompartments’ data from Guangxi forest management inventory, we researched the growth process of the average tree of Chinese fir plantation with different site index and the rule of density changes of Chinese fir plantation. By optimizing model structure, we established the model of volume growth and the model of technical volume ratio of Chinese fir plantation with different site index and calculated the technical volume and the present value of pure income of each age`s Chinese fir plantation, regarding the maximum present value of annual average net benefits as the judging index of economic maturity age and the economic maturity age as the final felling age. Results show that the final felling ages of Chinese fir plantation with different site index have small difference. The final felling age of Chinese fir plantation with different site index—12, 14, 16, 18, 20 is: 23 years, 23 years, 22 years, 22 years, 23 years, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".